Cause
findings are issued by the Director at the conclusion
of an investigation. There are three types of
findings.

A
Finding of Probable Cause is issued when an investigation
reasonably concludes that probable cause exists
to credit the allegations of the Verified Complaint.

A
Finding of No Probable Cause is issued when an
investigation reasonably concludes that no probable
cause exists to credit the allegations of the
Verified Complaint.

An
Agency Determination is issued when an investigation
reasonably concludes that probable cause exists
to credit some allegations of the Verified Complaint
and no probable cause exists with respect to other
allegations of the Verified Complaint. Agency
Determinations are considered findings of probable
cause with respect to the credited allegations.

Case
Summary:
Complainant Kathleen Connors Ryan alleged
that the Freehold Regional High School
District (Respondent) refused to hire
her because of her gender and in reprisal
for asserting her rights under the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)
and the New Jersey Family Leave Act (FLA).
Following an administrative hearing, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded
that Respondent was motivated by gender
discrimination and reprisal for Complainant’s
prior FLA claim in rejecting Complainant
for hire. The ALJ Awarded Complainant
backpay, and compensation for pain and
humiliation. The ALJ also ordered Respondent
to hire Complainant for the next available
similarly situated position, and to continue
backpay until hire.

By
order dated November 10, 2005, the Director
adopted the ALJ’s conclusion that
Respondent refused to hire Complainant
in reprisal for her prior FLA claim, but
found insufficient evidence in the record
to support the ALJ’s conclusion
that Respondent was also motivated by
gender discrimination. The Director imposed
a statutory penalty and awarded Complainant
pain and humiliation damages, but reduced
the ALJ’s recommended award. The
Director then requested supplemental information
from the parties to calculate the backpay
award and counsel fees. After receiving
stipulations from the parties regarding
the amount of backpay and counsel fees,
the Director issued a supplemental order
awarding Complainant $25,000 in pain and
humiliation damages, $305,025.28 in backpay,
and awarding $25,717.5 in counsel fees.

Case
Summary:
Complainant Vincent Palmieri filed a verified
complaint with the New Jersey Division
on Civil Rights (Division) alleging that
FedEx Express, Inc. (Respondent), terminated
his employment in reprisal for his prior
verbal and written complaints alleging
that Respondent discriminated against
him based on his sex. After an administrative
hearing, the Honorable Bruce Gorman, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ), issued an initial decision
dismissing the complaint. The ALJ concluded
that Complainant failed to present sufficient
evidence of a causal connection between
Complainant’s internal sex discrimination
complaint and Respondent’s decision
to issue its third warning letter to him
and terminate his employment.

After considering the parties’ exceptions
and replies, the Director adopted the
ALJ’s recommended dismissal of the
complaint, but modified the analysis.
The Director noted that Complainant argued
that Respondent subjected him to reprisal
for two separate actions: an internal
written complaint alleging sex discrimination,
and an earlier verbal claim of sex discrimination.
The Director concluded that Complainant
presented sufficient evidence to meet
a threshold showing for a prima facie
case of reprisal for both the verbal and
written complaints, but concluded that
Complainant failed to show that Respondent’s
non-discriminatory reasons for taking
disciplinary action against him were untrue,
or were pretext for unlawful reprisal.

Complainant
Tamara Hidalgo filed a verified complaint
with the New Jersey Division on Civil
Rights alleging that during her training
as a police officer recruit, the Camden
City Police Department (Respondent) differentially
treated and harassed her, and terminated
her employment after she sustained a shoulder
injury, all based on perceived disability/obesity.
Complainant also filed complaints with
the Police Training Commission and the
Merit System Board relating to the same
incidents, and the Honorable John R. Futey,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded
that the Police Training Commission held
the predominant interest in these matters.
After an administrative hearing, the ALJ
dismissed the complaint, and the Police
Training Commission adopted the recommended
dismissal. The Merit System Board then
issued a final decision regarding Complainant’s
separation from employment, concluding
that disciplinary removal from employment
was unduly harsh, and should be modified
to a resignation in good standing.

The
Director adopted the ALJ’s recommended
dismissal of Complainant’s disability
discrimination claims, concluding that
Complainant was not treated less favorably
than others because of perceived disability/obesity,
and that Respondent reasonably arrived
at the conclusion that Complainant’s
shoulder injury precluded job performance.

Case
Summary:
Complainant, a retired Hudson County Sheriff’s
Officer, filed a verified complaint with
the Division alleging that Respondent
unlawfully subjected him to reprisal in
violation of the Law Against Discrimination.
Respondent filed an answer denying any
violation of the LAD. Following an investigation,
the Director of the Division on Civil
Rights issued a finding of probable cause
crediting Complainant’s allegation
that he was treated differently as a result
of his filing a prior discrimination complaint
in 1973; specifically, that he was not
issued a replacement retired officer’s
identification card after his original
card had been either lost or stolen. Following
an administrative hearing, the administrative
law judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision
dismissing the complaint. The ALJ concluded
that the testimony provided at the hearings
did not indicate any intention to deprive
Complainant of any right or otherwise
take reprisals against him, and that other
similarly situated retirees had not received
more favorable treatment.

The
Director adopted the ALJ’s dismissal
of the complaint, with some modifications.
The Director concluded that the ALJ erred
in finding that the Sheriff was unaware
of Complainant’s prior discrimination
complaint. Notwithstanding, the Director
also found that Complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case of unlawful
reprisal, as the adverse action was not
sufficiently severe or pervasive enough
to alter Complainant’s employment
in a material manner, and that there was
insufficient causal connection between
the protected activity and the adverse
action due to a lack of temporal proximity.
Finally, the Director concluded that even
if Complainant had established a prima
facie case, Respondent articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse
action that Complainant was unable to
establish as pretextual. For these reasons,
the Director adopted the ALJ’s initial
decision.

Case
Summary:
This case involved a complainant who claimed
he was denied reinstatement to his position
as a bus driver because he had contracted
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Mr. Williams was hired by the respondent
to drive buses and limousines, but after
three months of satisfactory performance,
he became ill and took a leave of absence
for what was first diagnosed as hepatitis
or mononucleosis. One year later, Mr.
Williams produced a doctor’s note
that advised the respondent that he could
return to his job driving buses on a part
time basis, four to five times a week.
Nevertheless, he was never called back.
Mr. Williams died some six months later,
and his wife Lottie substituted as the
complainant. The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) who heard the case concluded that,
although the complainant demonstrated
that Mr. Williams had contracted AIDS,
and that therefore he was protected by
the LAD, the complainant did not prove
Mr. Williams was denied employment because
of his disability. Instead, the ALJ credited
the respondent’s explanation that
Mr. Williams was not rehired because he
failed to follow the respondent’s
procedure for getting bus driver assignments
by calling in to the office to inquire
about available jobs. Therefore, the ALJ
dismissed the complaint.

The Director reversed the ALJ’s
dismissal and concluded that the respondent
failed to recall Mr. Williams because
of his serious illness. The Director first
found that Mr. Williams had a covered
disability that was known to the respondent.
Even though there was some dispute about
whether the respondent specifically knew
Mr. Williams had AIDS (and there was substantial
evidence that it did), the Director concluded
that the respondent certainly knew that
Mr. Williams had a serious illness covered
by the LAD. Furthermore, the Director
concluded that Mr. Williams’ failure
to call in to the respondent’s office
was not the true reason he was not reinstated.
The record established that Mr. Williams
had presented his medical clearance to
return to work, and had twice visited
the respondent’s facility to ask
why he had not received bus driving assignments.
He was never given an assignment or told
why he had not been called back. Moreover,
the evidence was clear that there was
a shortage of bus drivers and the respondent
was always looking for experienced drivers.
Based on the entire record, the Director
concluded that Mr. Williams was denied
reinstatement because of his disability
in violation of the LAD, and he awarded
the complainant over $12,000 in back pay
and emotional distress. The entire Director’s
order can be read on the Division’s
website.